Advertisements

Brian Cryer <not.here@localhost> wrote:
> "DNA" <> wrote in message
> news:go5nsh$npd$...
>> Running msconfig and looking at ipconfig /all I noticed that my ISP
>> has allocated my connection with an IPv6 IP address.
>>
>> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network adapter
>> which
>> I suppose accounts for the output.
>>
>> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
>
> The spec has been around for a very long time, but I wasn't aware
> that any ISPs were using it. Most of the internet still runs on IPv4,
> so it may be a way of your ISP avoiding giving you a v4 IP address.

Prior to installing the IPv6 protocol the connection had allocated to it an
IPv4 IP address.

To confirm; The only change made on the machine has been the implementation
of the IPv6 protocol.
> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 in December 2008 IPv6
> was 10 years old and yet had less than 1% of internet traffic.

Right - Ta.
>> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder if
>> not impossible?
>
> Not sure what you mean by cracking of machines in this context. It
> might mean that its virtually impossible for you to run your own
> mail, web or ftp server on your machine because (almost) no-one else
> can connect to you. This wouldn't stop you connecting out, but would
> stop others from connecting in.

Cracking = Hacking > Unsolicited remote 'breaking and entering'.
> That said, there will be a time (possibly within the next few years)
> when there will be a big drive to move to IPv6 because of the much
> larger address space it provides.

Understood. Presumably all devices are now being manufactured with an IPv6
compliant MAC address for the future IP convention. Where not all devices
require an IPv4 IP does the new convention of IPv6 suggest that all devices
with such a protocol could become prone to unwanted access and subsequent
compromise?

Advertisements

"DNA" <> wrote in message
news:go5nsh$npd$...
> Running msconfig and looking at ipconfig /all I noticed that my ISP has
> allocated my connection with an IPv6 IP address.
>
> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network adapter
> which
> I suppose accounts for the output.
>
> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
>
> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder if not
> impossible?

Ummmmmm, yeah! Just the same as when the US started using ZIP+4 it made it
harder if not impossible to break into your home. It's just a fucking
address ..............

DNA wrote:
> Running msconfig and looking at ipconfig /all I noticed that my ISP has
> allocated my connection with an IPv6 IP address.
I assume from that, that you are connecting via a direct connection
rather than a more secure router?

Are you sure you are looking at your public IP address and not your LAN
address - the local ip of your modem?

More information needed to answer your query.

> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network adapter which
> I suppose accounts for the output.
Cause and effect. And one has to ask, why did you add IPv6?

> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
Years

> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder if not
> impossible?
IPv6 (Very basically here) just allows more addresses, you still have an
IP address on the internet so you are still visible.

Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
> DNA wrote:
>> Running msconfig and looking at ipconfig /all I noticed that my ISP
>> has allocated my connection with an IPv6 IP address.
> I assume from that, that you are connecting via a direct connection
> rather than a more secure router?

No, on the contrary, for the machine I refer to I connect through an old
Linksys BEF (wired) having allocated 192.168.1.100 as with all other
machines, nomenclature notwithstanding.
> Are you sure you are looking at your public IP address and not your
> LAN address - the local ip of your modem?

Having checked before I spout misinformation, the answer to that is, no, but
I stand corrected if indeed I misinterpret what I am about to detail.

Enough? So, is the IP I've highlighted with ****** the actual IP or the MAC
address of the modem or the router?
>> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network
>> adapter which I suppose accounts for the output.
> Cause and effect. And one has to ask, why did you add IPv6?

Because it's there ;-)
>> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
> Years

Roger that.
>> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder if
>> not impossible?
> IPv6 (Very basically here) just allows more addresses, you still have
> an IP address on the internet so you are still visible.

The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous'
IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so
one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local).

That's the IP address of your LAN card where you have installed IPv6.
You have assigned IPv6 to your LAN connection, not your ISP/WAN connection.

MAC addresses are a different thing listed as "Physical Address" above.

>>> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network
>>> adapter which I suppose accounts for the output.
>> Cause and effect. And one has to ask, why did you add IPv6?
>
> Because it's there ;-)
No offence, but you obviously don't know what you are doing or why. I
recommend that you remove IPv6 as it is serving no purpose other than to
add a layer of complexity to your configuration that could cause you
problems.
>
>>> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
>> Years
>
> Roger that.
>
>>> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder if
>>> not impossible?
>> IPv6 (Very basically here) just allows more addresses, you still have
>> an IP address on the internet so you are still visible.
>
> Indeed I do, which is confirmed from grc's Shields Up.

DNA wrote:
> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous'
> IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so
> one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local).

169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
be found.

192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
block should not appear on the public Internet.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>DNA wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous'
>> IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so
>> one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>
>Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under "special
>addresses" where it states that it is analogous to 169.254.0.0./16
>
>169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
> be found.

True.
>
>192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
> block should not appear on the public Internet.

As well as a couple of others.

Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you should
be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 resources.

It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr, while
your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168.

You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to be
any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx it's
hard to tell.

From your ipconfig, Vista's output is a bit different it add the words
Link-Local to the descriptions.

Yes, I now realise that - of course!
> MAC addresses are a different thing listed as "Physical Address"
> above.

<shakes head at self>
>>>> Recently I applied Microsoft TCP/IP version 6 for the network
>>>> adapter which I suppose accounts for the output.
>>> Cause and effect. And one has to ask, why did you add IPv6?
>>
>> Because it's there ;-)
> No offence, but you obviously don't know what you are doing or why. I
> recommend that you remove IPv6 as it is serving no purpose other than
> to add a layer of complexity to your configuration that could cause
> you problems.

Just as well I didn't profess to know what I was referring to or "... know
what I was doing, or why" ;-)

I'll disable it under your advismeent - thanks.
>>
>>>> How long have IPv6 IP addresses been in use?
>>> Years
>>
>> Roger that.
>>
>>>> Does that mean cracking of machines with IPv6 IP's will be harder
>>>> if not impossible?
>>> IPv6 (Very basically here) just allows more addresses, you still
>>> have an IP address on the internet so you are still visible.
>>
>> Indeed I do, which is confirmed from grc's Shields Up.
>
> And I'll wager that public IP is an IPv4 one ;-)

why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
>> DNA wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>
>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>
>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may
>> not be found.
>
> True.
>
>>
>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within
>> this block should not appear on the public Internet.
>
> As well as a couple of others.
>
> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
> resources.

I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 - I do
not know as I post if my ISP does or does not provide IPv6.
> It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr, while
> your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168.
>
> You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to
> be any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx
> it's hard to tell.

How would ISP supplied DNS differ from current DNS conventions if IPv6 were
present and operative? Would ISP supplied DNS present itself using the same
convention as IPv6 IP addresses? FIO: The current ISP supplied DNS provides
the same standard DNS convention as the IP supplied which /is/ actually
IPv4.
> From your ipconfig, Vista's output is a bit different it add the words
> Link-Local to the descriptions.

Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
> DNA wrote:
>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>
> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
> 169.254.0.0./16
> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
> be found.
>
>
> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
> block should not appear on the public Internet.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:41:58 +0100, DNA wrote:
>why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>
>>> DNA wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>>
>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>>
>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
>>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
>>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may
>>> not be found.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>>
>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
>>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within
>>> this block should not appear on the public Internet.
>>
>> As well as a couple of others.
>>
>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
>> resources.
>
>I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4 - I do
>not know as I post if my ISP does or does not provide IPv6.

All you have to do is ask them
>> It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr, while
>> your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168.
>>
>> You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to
>> be any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx
>> it's hard to tell.
>
>How would ISP supplied DNS differ from current DNS conventions if IPv6 were

Nothing you need to worry about unless you are writing network aware
services for routers / firewalls etc. You are of course

What conventions? UDP/TCP, IPv4 v IPv6 address and DHCPv6?

The essential services are all the same.
>present and operative? Would ISP supplied DNS present itself using the same

When you use terms like 'present' , it's more like you want to know how
to wrap up the IPV6 info into a IPv4 UDP packet, which then uses the
existing methods until it hits the tunnel endpoint and is decoded.
>convention as IPv6 IP addresses? FIO: The current ISP supplied DNS provides
>the same standard DNS convention as the IP supplied which /is/ actually

As long as it's more likely dual stack systems then independent stacks,
your confusion appears to be in the dual addressing you see. Vista and
most likely other versions of Win are using dual v4/v6 stacks. This
means making a compromise with the Teredo tunnelling and pushing IPv6
addressing via IPv4 formats.
>IPv4.

If you want to get into the 'conventions' there are lots of RFC's to
read.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:14:34 GMT, why? wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
>>DNA wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous'
>>> IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so
>>> one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>
>>Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under "special
>>addresses" where it states that it is analogous to 169.254.0.0./16
>>
>>169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
>> be found.
>
>True.
>
>>
>>192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
>> block should not appear on the public Internet.
>
>As well as a couple of others.
>
>Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you should
>be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 resources.

why? wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>
>> DNA wrote:
>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that 'autonomous'
>>> IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect directly to the net, so
>>> one assumes they are similarly used to 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under "special
>> addresses" where it states that it is analogous to 169.254.0.0./16
>>
>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not
>> be found.
>
> True.
>
>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within this
>> block should not appear on the public Internet.
>
> As well as a couple of others.
>
> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you should
> be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6 resources.

DNA wrote:
> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>
>>> DNA wrote:
>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>>
>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
>>> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
>>> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may
>>> not be found.
>> True.
>>
>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private networks.
>>> Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses within
>>> this block should not appear on the public Internet.
>> As well as a couple of others.
>>
>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
>> resources.
>
> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4

Don't bother. The advice from why? is bad as he hasn't yet realised you
are using a router and looking at the LAN config. If you disable IPv4
you will lose contact with your router and thus the Internet and then be
completely screwed.

Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
> DNA wrote:
>> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>
>>>> DNA wrote:
>>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>>>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>>>
>>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated
>>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain
>>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP
>>>> server may not be found.
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private
>>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses
>>>> within this block should not appear on the public
>>>> Internet.
>>> As well as a couple of others.
>>>
>>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
>>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
>>> resources.
>>
>> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4
>
> Don't bother. The advice from why? is bad as he hasn't yet realised
> you are using a router and looking at the LAN config. If you disable
> IPv4 you will lose contact with your router and thus the Internet and
> then be completely screwed.

I did disable IPv4 and left IPv6 selected, just to see what would happen -
other than, as you cited (losing in'et and router access) there was no
noticeable adverse effect ;-)

But yes, IPv6 is totally irrelevant to 'common' usage at this time - it is
now uninstalled.

why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:41:58 +0100, DNA wrote:
>
>> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>
>>>> DNA wrote:
>>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>>>
>>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>>>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>>>
>>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated
>>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain
>>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP
>>>> server may not be found.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private
>>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918].
>>>> Addresses within this block should not appear on the public
>>>> Internet.
>>>
>>> As well as a couple of others.
>>>
>>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
>>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
>>> resources.
>>
>> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4
>> - I do not know as I post if my ISP does or does not provide IPv6.
>
> All you have to do is ask them
>
>>> It would be unlikely your ISP would issue you with an IPV6 addr,
>>> while your IPv4 is showing the usual router allocated 198.168.
>>>
>>> You also have DHCP Enabled - No. So none of those settings appear to
>>> be any ISP supplied gateway or DNS, of course since they are xxx.xxx
>>> it's hard to tell.
>>
>> How would ISP supplied DNS differ from current DNS conventions if
>> IPv6 were
>
> Nothing you need to worry about unless you are writing network
> aware services for routers / firewalls etc. You are of course
>
> What conventions? UDP/TCP, IPv4 v IPv6 address and DHCPv6?
>
> The essential services are all the same.
>
>> present and operative? Would ISP supplied DNS present itself using
>> the same
>
> When you use terms like 'present' , it's more like you want to know
> how to wrap up the IPV6 info into a IPv4 UDP packet, which then uses
> the existing methods until it hits the tunnel endpoint and is decoded.
>
>> convention as IPv6 IP addresses? FIO: The current ISP supplied DNS
>> provides the same standard DNS convention as the IP supplied which
>> /is/ actually
>
> As long as it's more likely dual stack systems then independent
> stacks, your confusion appears to be in the dual addressing you see.
> Vista and most likely other versions of Win are using dual v4/v6
> stacks. This means making a compromise with the Teredo tunnelling and
> pushing IPv6 addressing via IPv4 formats.
>
>> IPv4.
>
> If you want to get into the 'conventions' there are lots of RFC's to
> read.
>
> <snip>
>
> Me

I've awarded *myself* a 'WHOOSH!!' for that which you've posted above,
because it's well deserved

DNA wrote:
> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>> DNA wrote:
>>> why? <fgrirp*sgc@VAINY!Qznq.fpvragvfg.pbz> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:43:21 +0000, Desk Rabbit wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> DNA wrote:
>>>>>> Desk Rabbit <> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The chappy in the vid' seems to know his stuff, and states that
>>>>>> 'autonomous' IPv6 addresses prefixed with fe80 cannot connect
>>>>>> directly to the net, so one assumes they are similarly used to
>>>>>> 192.168.1.xxx's (local).
>>>>> Not the same. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6 under
>>>>> "special addresses" where it states that it is analogous to
>>>>> 169.254.0.0./16
>>>>>
>>>>> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated
>>>>> for communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain
>>>>> these addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP
>>>>> server may not be found.
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>>> 192.168.0.0/16 - This block is set aside for use in private
>>>>> networks. Its intended use is documented in [RFC1918]. Addresses
>>>>> within this block should not appear on the public
>>>>> Internet.
>>>> As well as a couple of others.
>>>>
>>>> Back to your 1st issue, if your ISP is really doing IPv6 then you
>>>> should be able to disable IPv4 and connect to any of the many IPv6
>>>> resources.
>>> I was in error - I will though see what happens if I do disable IPv4
>> Don't bother. The advice from why? is bad as he hasn't yet realised
>> you are using a router and looking at the LAN config. If you disable
>> IPv4 you will lose contact with your router and thus the Internet and
>> then be completely screwed.
>
> I did disable IPv4 and left IPv6 selected, just to see what would happen -
> other than, as you cited (losing in'et and router access) there was no
> noticeable adverse effect ;-)
>

Gosh, keep fiddling long enough you will eventually break your computer ;-)

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!